Malcolm wrote:Right, we do not agree. I do not accept that there is a so called Indian Yogacara that is not cittamatra, despite whatever confusion some Tibetans and Westerners have about this issue.

Indeed. It's instructive to see how the distinction between mind-only and consciousness-only developed in China and Japan: http://www.scribd.com/doc/78948070/Will ... gy-ha-302p. Page 153, The Meaning of "Mind-Only" (Wei-Hsin): "an analysis of a sinitic Nahayana phenomenon, by Whalen Lai:

Modern Japanese Buddhologists, following a distinction that was evident already in theT'ang Buddhist circles, speak of a Mind-Only (Sanskrit: Cittamaatra) school usually covering Zen and Hua-yen as being distinct from, and superior to, the Consciousness-Only (Sanskrit: Vijnaaptimatra) tradition, represented by the Wei-shih school (Fa-hsing) of Hsuan-tsang's followers. This distinction between the so-called Wei-hsin (Mind-Only) and Wei-shih (Consciousness-Only) is often assumed to be self-evident. However, there is, in Indian Buddhism, only one term, Yogaacaara or Vijnaaptimatra, covering these two distinct branches in China. In the Tibetan Buddhist canon also, the section known as Cittamaatra designates only Yogaacaara texts. There is no sharp distinction made in India or Tibet between Cittamaatra and Vijnaptimaatra, Mind-Only or Consciousness-Only, or, for that matter, between citta, mind, or (aalaya)-vijnaana, (storehouse)-consciousness. In Yogaacaara traditions, citta is often another term for aalayavijnaana. How is it then that the Chinese and then the Japanese have this clear notion that Mind-Only is something other than, and superior to, Consciousness-Only? In the following article, I will discuss the meaning of Mind-Only from only one particular perspective by tracing the roots of the Zen concept of the Mind being the Buddha-nature. I will not touch upon the debate between Hua-yen and Fa-hsian, an ideological conflict that historically precipitated the Mind-Only versus Consciousness-Only dichotomy.

All things are unworthy of clinging to (sabbe dhammā nâla abhinivesāyā). --Shakyamuni BuddhaIf there is clinging, you do not have the view. --Drakpa Gyaltsen

Andrew108 wrote:Ok good. So the sense in which Dzogchen and Yogacara are different depends on whether a genuine difference exists in terms of this understanding about the 8th consciousness. If they have the same view about this 8th consciousness then they would be saying the same thing. Is this a fair assessment? We are not trying to establish superiority here, but we are interested in whether Dzogchen does in fact share the same view as Yogacara. Is this okay?

Ok. This is a fair assessment.

So my assessment is this:If the 8th consciousness that you have mentioned is emptiness from which there is manifestation then the view of Yogacara and Dzogchen are equal. However there are caveats. This emptiness cannot have any time to it. Neither can it act as a cause. And neither can it have an owner or location. No duration and no results come from realizing it. Is this okay?

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Andrew108 wrote:So my assessment is this:If the 8th consciousness that you have mentioned is emptiness from which there is manifestation then the view of Yogacara and Dzogchen are equal. However there are caveats. This emptiness cannot have any time to it. Neither can it act as a cause. And neither can it have an owner or location. No duration and no results come from realizing it. Is this okay?

Now that we have some agreement I have to tell you something. This soup that we are making needs a stock (yogachara). After the stock we add some garnish (Prasangika). Then we put the the soup in a nice bowl (Shentong). Then on the way to the table our guru knocks the soup out of our hands! This is dzogchen. It's not a part of the soup but it's extremely important. Why? Because we realize we weren't that hungry. Even though our soup has been knocked to the floor we are satisfied. It's a Tibetan kind of soup with Indian flavorings but anyway it's on the floor now so we don't worry. Jyoti - hope you get this. Ugly Andrew.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Andrew108 wrote:This soup that we are making needs a stock (yogachara). After the stock we add some garnish (Prasangika). Then we put the the soup in a nice bowl (Shentong). Then on the way to the table our guru knocks the soup out of our hands! This is dzogchen.

These are just play of names which are without the meaning. For one who realize the dharma, there is knowledge of the equality of all dharma, especially the teachings that share the same basis.

You are still in the kitchen making your dharma soup. I don't have any soup anymore.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Since you say you don't have soup anymore, then your soup is dzogchen, as stated in your previous post :"Then on the way to the table our guru knocks the soup out of our hands! This is dzogchen."

However, if you were to say you have the soup, then indeed you have no more soup (including the soup of dzogchen) since the pretext is of dropping the soup (without the soup the pretext is not needed, since the pretext is there, the soup is needed), thus whatever soup you have will be drop by following dzogchen, yogacara or other mahayana traditions.

You are habituated to following words and not the meaning, as well as being habituated to the perception of inequality of others and of dharma, these factors are the causes of this error in the reasoning.

Andrew108 wrote:So my assessment is this:If the 8th consciousness that you have mentioned is emptiness from which there is manifestation then the view of Yogacara and Dzogchen are equal. However there are caveats. This emptiness cannot have any time to it. Neither can it act as a cause. And neither can it have an owner or location. No duration and no results come from realizing it. Is this okay?

Ok.

Jyoti

You agreed with all these words but actually these words don't have any meaning. They are just garbage words. What you get from a teacher is a thousand times more meaningful. What you get from a teacher of Dzogchen is just....... Wonderful.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Andrew108 wrote:So my assessment is this:If the 8th consciousness that you have mentioned is emptiness from which there is manifestation then the view of Yogacara and Dzogchen are equal. However there are caveats. This emptiness cannot have any time to it. Neither can it act as a cause. And neither can it have an owner or location. No duration and no results come from realizing it. Is this okay?

Ok.

Jyoti

You agreed with all these words but actually these words don't have any meaning. They are just garbage words. What you get from a teacher is a thousand times more meaningful. What you get from a teacher of Dzogchen is just....... Wonderful.

As I investigated Yogacara is not really different from Madhyamaka in this meaning of Santideva's pointing-out:

Once what had to be analyzed has been analyzed,The analysis has no basis left.Since there is no basis, it does not continue.This is expressed as nirvana

But the problem is if really is someone these days realized by this collapse of analysis of Yogacara or Madhyamaka alone, or just left in the paradoxes. Today the realization takes place somewhere else unfoutunately:)

Andrew108 wrote:You agreed with all these words but actually these words don't have any meaning. They are just garbage words. What you get from a teacher is a thousand times more meaningful. What you get from a teacher of Dzogchen is just....... Wonderful.

This type of thinking is example of the mixing of the view of the two yanas with the view of definitive meaning, which is an error.

A qualified teacher is helpful to realization but it does not rid the need for study and analysis of the dharma for oneself in order to attain certainty. Because the final certainty is based on oneself, not the teacher, as the Buddha said that though he gives the teaching, he cannot gives realization, since the practice and realization depends on oneself. A teacher cannot be greater than the Buddha, he similarly cannot gives realization to others, without the others engaged themselves in study and analysis of the teaching.

The words of definitive dharma contained meaning, it is unlike the provisional dharma that point to a method with concealed intent and not actually containing the meaning. Thus, in the two yanas, the dharma is considered a raft that is to be discarded (dropped) after one reached the 'other shore'. However, in the definitive dharma, if there is words about a nirvana or 'other shore' to be reached, such a scripture is considered non-definitive. Thus, in the definitive dharma, the words of dharma, or the dharma itself is not consider a raft to be discarded.

Generally with the various dialectic traditions, the scriptures of the final turning are considered definitive, they are essential for study and for analysis in order to attain certainty.

MIPHAM'S BEACON OF CERTAINTY:<<The fame of the Moon of the Amazing Dharma Arises along with the light of elegant speech In the vast sky of the Buddha's teaching, Vanquishing the heavy darkness of doubt. .(i.e. The basis for all of this studying, reflecting and meditating, about the way things really are, is the teachings of the Madhyamika School: Nagarjuna & all. More precisely, the correct reasonings as explained by Chandrakirti and Dharmakirti. By studying the way to establish the two truths through syllogism and prasanga, one gain this certainty about the view, path and result, and do not fall into extremes.)>>

Jyoti. As I have mentioned you are cooking a soup following a recipe. But only a teacher knows how the soup should taste and then once the soup is prepared the teacher knocks it out of your hands. Your ego as teacher will always keep you cooking the dharma. That's why in order to understand the meaning you need both intellect and the teacher. And in the final analysis you drop the intellect and go with the consequences of having a teacher. This is how it works. Any debate is essentially meaningless in this context. Your soup tastes as you think it should. The taste only fits you. Do you understand the meaning of this?

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Tiger wrote:"Guru" and "practice" are causes here, and "self-emergence" is result.

lol so you think that adding together a guru plus practice produces buddhahood? Because that is the absurd statement your words are conveying here. Maybe you want to rethink this angle...

It is logic 101.

Without a Guru you cannot practice Dzogchen to attain Buddhahood - according to Dzogchen of course - so that makes "Guru" a necessary "Cause" for attaining Buddhahood.

And then claiming that the Buddhahood of Dzogchen is "self-emergent" or "spontaneous" and "beyond cause and effect", you contradict the first statement because a Guru's empowerment was logically concluded to be a necessary requirement in your sect. Either the requirement for Guru is indispensable for your goal (and your realization is NON-spontaneous) OR your vehicle leads to the arousal of "Buddhahood" spontaneously. It cannot be both at the same time.

And I am pretty sure your experience of "realization" conferred to you by your Guru must have been a profound experience, but you are being closed-minded in thinking that (i)it was THE most profound experience (ii)Only Yogic Dzogchen masters can make you enter states of mind through their power of the mind. If you explore more possibilities, you will see that many realized beings can give you profound experiences. Some Hindu, Taoists, Hinayanists etc.

Dzogchen in this case is like falling hopelessly in love. Yogachara is like an arranged marriage. So yes there is something to compare. However it's never smart to make people look or feel that they are missing out on love. They just get angry and give you a million reasons why arranged marriages are good. Also we know how people in love seem to feel themselves superior to others and how angry this makes people. Personally I think the ego can get a bruising on these forums and this has always been good for me. But when the ego takes the place of the teacher then the debates will be endless as the ego always needs to defend itself. Jyoti has decided that she doesn't need a teacher. For her, her intellect is enough. But we are adults here and a little truth shouldn't hurt. In her case her ego has taken on the role of a teacher. So it's quite a dangerous place to be. I mentioned before how the teacher knocks this dharma soup from your hands. This has to happen. Then the ego isn't so much involved. It's really important that the ego isn't part of our dharma understanding. I know it's not nice to be wrong or feel bad or feel that after a lot of studying and effort things aren't quite what they should be. I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad and this is how a person loses friends. But in this case it helps to be direct and make comparisons. We can agree that the two views are the same but we would be agreeing with words only. In practice Dzogchen and Yogacara are very very different. We can study these differences and the differences will be subtle. But with Dzogchen it's the teacher that is the key and then the differences become more obvious for some depending on how connected they are to the teacher principle.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Tiger wrote:"Guru" and "practice" are causes here, and "self-emergence" is result.

lol so you think that adding together a guru plus practice produces buddhahood? Because that is the absurd statement your words are conveying here. Maybe you want to rethink this angle...

It is logic 101.

Without a Guru you cannot practice Dzogchen to attain Buddhahood - according to Dzogchen of course - so that makes "Guru" a necessary "Cause" for attaining Buddhahood.

And then claiming that the Buddhahood of Dzogchen is "self-emergent" or "spontaneous" and "beyond cause and effect", you contradict the first statement because a Guru's empowerment was logically concluded to be a necessary requirement in your sect. Either the requirement for Guru is indispensable for your goal (and your realization is NON-spontaneous) OR your vehicle leads to the arousal of "Buddhahood" spontaneously. It cannot be both at the same time.

And I am pretty sure your experience of "realization" conferred to you by your Guru must have been a profound experience, but you are being closed-minded in thinking that (i)it was THE most profound experience (ii)Only Yogic Dzogchen masters can make you enter states of mind through their power of the mind. If you explore more possibilities, you will see that many realized beings can give you profound experiences. Some Hindu, Taoists, Hinayanists etc.

Yes this is an interesting point and worth a thread on its own. The role of the teacher in dzogchen is very very important to understand. It's not quite how you have thought. But let's talk about this some more information another thread perhaps?

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Jyoti wrote:(i.e. The basis for all of this studying, reflecting and meditating, about the way things really are, is the teachings of the Madhyamika School: Nagarjuna & all. More precisely, the correct reasonings as explained by Chandrakirti and Dharmakirti. By studying the way to establish the two truths through syllogism and prasanga, one gain this certainty about the view, path and result, and do not fall into extremes.)

Extremes such as Dharmakaya being truly existent?

Jyoti wrote:

Andrew108 wrote:This soup that we are making needs a stock (yogachara). After the stock we add some garnish (Prasangika). Then we put the the soup in a nice bowl (Shentong). Then on the way to the table our guru knocks the soup out of our hands! This is dzogchen.

These are just play of names which are without the meaning. For one who realize the dharma, there is knowledge of the equality of all dharma, especially the teachings that share the same basis.

The meaning seems prefectly clear here. The equality of all dharma is the point where "all dharmas are empty".

we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche

Dzogchen in this case is like falling hopelessly in love. Yogachara is like an arranged marriage. So yes there is something to compare. However it's never smart to make people look or feel that they are missing out on love. They just get angry and give you a million reasons why arranged marriages are good. Also we know how people in love seem to feel themselves superior to others and how angry this makes people. Personally I think the ego can get a bruising on these forums and this has always been good for me. But when the ego takes the place of the teacher then the debates will be endless as the ego always needs to defend itself. Jyoti has decided that she doesn't need a teacher. For her, her intellect is enough. But we are adults here and a little truth shouldn't hurt. In her case her ego has taken on the role of a teacher. So it's quite a dangerous place to be. I mentioned before how the teacher knocks this dharma soup from your hands. This has to happen. Then the ego isn't so much involved. It's really important that the ego isn't part of our dharma understanding. I know it's not nice to be wrong or feel bad or feel that after a lot of studying and effort things aren't quite what they should be. I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad and this is how a person loses friends. But in this case it helps to be direct and make comparisons. We can agree that the two views are the same but we would be agreeing with words only. In practice Dzogchen and Yogacara are very very different. We can study these differences and the differences will be subtle. But with Dzogchen it's the teacher that is the key and then the differences become more obvious for some depending on how connected they are to the teacher principle.

Free from extremes refer only to the means, whereas the body exists without extreme since its opposite body of non-existent does not exist. In the realm of nonduality, the concept of extreme does not apply, thus the body is originally free from extreme (opposite).

The meaning seems prefectly clear here. The equality of all dharma is the point where "all dharmas are empty".

This is not what equality means, otherwise, the doctrine of heretics would be equalled as well. Equality means sharing the same structure of body, form and means. Dropping all this structure is termed the negation in the extreme (nihilism), without the body, even the word nonduality is not established, thus to called this dzogchen is misrepresenting that tradition with an errant view.